Voice of the people (letter).

Attack On Judge Crosses Fairness Line

WAUKEGAN — Any columnist for a major newspaper enjoys both a huge audience and the broad protection of the 1st Amendment. Precisely because of the tremendous exposure and potential popularity accorded to a successful columnist, there should be a corresponding sense of responsibility and a pledge to not engage in unfair personal attacks on persons who obviously cannot reply in kind.

The Tribune's Bob Greene, unfortunately, has ignored his responsibility in his arrogant efforts to publicly castigate Illinois Supreme Court Justice James Heiple because of legal opinions with which Mr. Greene does not agree.

Last summer, Mr. Greene published several incendiary columns and personal attacks on Justice Heiple following the publicized "Baby Richard" decision. Mr. Greene scorched the decision, which was decided unanimously by seven justices of the Illinois Supreme Court, and maliciously characterized Justice Heiple as totally insensitive to the needs of children. And while Mr. Greene would have overturned the decision, the United States Supreme Court declined to do so.

Apparently unsatisfied that his view of the law had not prevailed, Mr. Greene waited for the week that a new hearing on Baby Richard was scheduled before the Illinois Supreme Court to once again publicly lynch Justice Heiple, this time over a 1989 unanimous opinion of the Appellate Court on which Justice Heiple then sat. The duty of his court in that case was to review a written record of a trial proceeding pertaining to an adoption. The three judges, including Justice Heiple's later opponent for the Supreme Court, agreed on the only proper decision on the record. All attorneys involved at the trial level agreed. Justice Heiple wrote the order for the court. Any panel of appellate judges in Illinois would have reached the same decision.

Over the years following the decision, the family life of the adopting couple apparently disintegrated, according to Mr. Greene. If that is the case, all of us would sympathize with the boy. That does not give Mr. Greene the right to look back six years and criticize a particular judge who ruled in the case based on the record in the trial court.

In doing this, Mr. Greene imposes on judges the seeming responsibility of doing the impossible-predicting the future. Mr. Greene is either ignorant of, or disregards for his fanatical goals the limits of the function of judges sitting in courts of appeal.

Mr. Greene is stretching the limits of the 1st Amendment with these relentless personal attacks. Did he believe that he could intimidate the court in the Baby Richard case? Or that he has more legal wisdom than all of the judges who have agreed with Justice Heiple in these two cases?

The only irony here is that it is judges like James Heiple who would look at the rule of law and defend Mr. Greene's right to print these vicious attacks.